I have commented many times in the past few years that the emissions scenarios underlying IPCC climate projections were archaic and focus needed to shift based on historical (observed) emissions away from the emissions set established more than a decade ago.
It is thus refreshing to see in a new short article, written by some of the most well-known names in climate science, the A2 scenario described as “moderate” instead of “extreme” (if it was used in a scientific report in the first place), as was the case even within the last year. The authors accurately state that to achieve the A2 trajectory, which results in some of the warmest global conditions by the end of the 21st century, we would have to drastically reduce our emissions now. I have also written many times that this reduction will not happen any time in the near future. I keep promising some information to back up that claim and I’ll promise it here again. A different recent report further reinforced the need I feel to share with readers of this blog. Hopefully I will have time to write it soon.
I highly recommend reading the article I’ve linked to above. It’s easy to read, short, yet carries a high impact message for those of us experiencing the destructive and sometimes deadly effects of heat waves in recent years (and right now!).
Occasionally, there are too many news bits and stories that I want to take more time to comment on but can’t. Here then are a series of things that caught my eye recently, in no particular order.
The English climate scientists that had their emails illegally hacked have been vindicated in a number of different investigations. At worst, ‘proper openness’ to data was found. Unfortunately, the right-wing misinformation apparatus that sprang into over-drive about the emails’ contents might have accomplished its goal: delaying climate action in the U.S. and England. The short-sighted fools might have put the finishing touches on condemning the next 50 generations to a hellish Earth. Thanks a lot. Oh, in the meantime – nobody has investigated the only crime in the story: the original hacking of servers, what a number of us called ‘hackergate’, but was never picked up by the corporate media (go figure).
GE is putting together $200 Million for an “Ecomagination Challenge”, which they describe as a contest to improve smart grid technology. This is a good role for GE to play. Smart grids have so far had only limited deployment into the real world and that’s something that public policy-makers need to get busy on. Those deployments have been delayed and scaled back because of issues found during deployment. That isn’t shocking, it just means more efforts need to be made to solidify this critical component of our future energy use. I would be even more impressed if GE put a larger purse together, of course. How about $2 Billion for a series of contests. It’s not like they wouldn’t recoup the costs many times over.
I’ve included this in the previous post already, but it really can’t get enough coverage. A Stanford study found that extreme heat waves could be very common within 30 years’ time. The effects on people’s health (fatalities) and agriculture would be massive. Maybe when most of our crops fail and people are dying from heat exhaustion by the thousands, maybe then we’ll take this climate change thing seriously. I would still expect people like Sen. Inhofe to spout his latest nonsensical climate denier talking points, of course.
Add the Pentagon to the list of pinko-commie, tree-hugging, one-world-conspiracy theorists that “believe” in global warming. A group of people responsible for national security have let scientists know they want probabilistic climate change risk assessments conducted. National security folks already come close to speaking the language of climate science. Instead of expecting perfect projections, experts in both fields use ranges and levels of certainty to ascertain risk. Get used to news like this, deniers. After the U.S. military has jumped the shark, there’s no telling who’s next.
Working hand-in-hand with a smart grid (see the GE story above), smart meters remain an unknown technology in terms of how people use them and whether energy usage shifts as a result. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy released a report a few weeks ago that showed that smart meters alone don’t work to trim consumers’ consumption. Just as Prius owners have discovered, once up-to-the-minute feedback is shared to users, people don’t typically have an incentive to conserve. If homeowner’s could see real-time energy prices and demand within their home, they would make changes to how and when they did the same activities they’ve always taken for granted.
I found some designs for vertical farms to be used in urban settings recently. They look cool and they would serve to reduce our food’s carbon footprint dramatically. Google ‘vertical farming’ and enjoy looking through the results sometime.
The wide-ranging heat extremes should provide folks with a small taste of what every summer will feel like in 2100 if we don’t get our greenhouse gas pollution under control. In fact, can anybody tell me why James Inhofe (Oil-Bought) and his grandchildren aren’t building igloos in Washington D.C. today to mock Al Gore? A record snowstorm in February brought out the Inhofe clan, providing days of chuckles to the anti-science flat-earther crowd. Where are they now?
Scientists in February told media organizations that massive snowstorms like the one affecting D.C. were more likely to occur today than they were 30 years ago because of the increased moisture capacity of the atmosphere that we’ve forced on the climate. If we fail to clean up our act, massive snowstorms and record-breaking heat waves will be even more likely 30 years from today. Count on it; or don’t – the climate will do what it is supposed to do, regardless of how many people choose to ignore it.
So far in 2010, there have been 3380 max temperature records as opposed to only 1273 min temperature records for the U.S. In June alone, there were 808 heat records and a mere 167 cold records. Global cooling, deniers? I don’t think so. This bears repeating: I think it is unfortunately likely that by the time Americans decide to take the kind of actions necessary to address climate change, heat waves like the one impacting the east coast will be a yearly problem.
What is the status of the Senate Climate & Energy bill? The Con helping to draft the legislation has walked away from the process (like he was ever going to vote for it anyway) and Sen. LIE-berman and Sen. Kerry are hard at work gutting the remainder of the bill in order to entice other Cons (or just one Con!) to vote for the bill and send it along its merry way. In other words, by the time it might make it out of the Senate, it will be all but worthless, despite what many are saying about it. Health care legislative advances might be incrementally advanced. Climate legislative advances cannot be. The 40-year window that was available to us has already closed. Robust climate legislation must be passed this year or Americans must become accustomed to enormous price tags to merely deal with the climate change effects that are guaranteed to occur. If we want to mitigate or even reverse some of the damage we’ve caused, that will cost even more. It seems to me we’ve made our choice and it’s a stupid one.
The good news is slightly more attention is being paid to the issue of climate change in the media. The bad news is the dates being used don’t reflect the latest research to the degree they should. Since we have to take the bad with the good, I’m going to take a quick look at how the issue was handled recently. This Lifestyle article at MSN was about America post-2100. But since the overwhelming majority of climate change metrics are currently worse (as measured by observations) than they were forecasted to be for the 2007 IPCC Report, and since additional research since the Report was issued has moved up timelines for climate change effects, the article should relay to readers that the conditions within more accurately reflect post-2050 America than post-2100 America. But without further ado, let’s look at exactly what effects were discussed.
Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska
What we could see in 2100 post-2050: Heavier rains, dramatic warming over higher latitudes and sea-level rise. According to recent research, Alaska has already experienced a 3.6 degree Fahrenheit increase since 1951, much more than the rest of America. The Northwest will also be affected by the forecasted two to three feet (or as much as 3-7 feet, according to more recent research) of sea level rise.
Northeast: Virginia to Maine
What we could see in 2100 post-2050: More severe storms in the winter and summer, extreme sea level rise and flooding. Indeed, a couple of recent journal articles I’ve read point out that if the land-based West Antarctica ice sheets melt this century, sea levels won’t rise by the same amount all over the globe. Sea levels off the U.S. Northeast coast will rise a couple of meters more than other places. Unfortunately, that region is also one of the most densely populated by people.
Southeast: The Gulf Coast states, up to Carolina
What we could see in 2100 post-2050: Hurricanes, wind damage, storm surges, flooding, extra sea level rise. Lots of people, lots of infrastructure. That means lots of money to either protect everything and everybody or move them inland.
The Northern Plains, Midwest and Great Lakes
What we could see in 2100 post-2050: Stronger storms (i.e. tornadoes, heavy rain events) occurring throughout the year as well as warmer winters. More intense storm systems mean increased chances of flash flooding across the region.
By not choosing to pay to address these potential effects now, we choose to pay more for them later. Protection along the coasts, more flood defense systems, dropping water tables higher rates of disease associated with warmer conditions, among others, will all have an adverse financial effect. Larger clean-up and rescue efforts will cost more. Building insurance rates will skyrocket – forcing more and more people to go without or move inland whether the coasts are protected or not. What will loss of part of population centers mean for businesses and urban cores?
These changes will more likely occur sooner rather than later. More people in the U.S. need to understand that potential so that more realistic policies can be set.
